Biodiversity Journal, 2015, 6 (1): 53–72

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalo-cera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy

Peter F. McGrath

IAP/TWAS, ICTP campus, Strada Costiera 11, 34151 Trieste, Italy; e-mail: mcgrath@twas.org

ABSTRACT A photographic survey of butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) was carried out over a periodof three years (2011, 2012 and 2013) in an area around the villages of Malchina, Ceroglieand Slivia, the municipality of Duino-Aurisina near Trieste, in the Friuli Venezia-Giuliaregion, northeast Italy. Historically, this area of the Triestine karst has been influenced byhuman activities. Grazing intensity, however, has declined over the past 50-100 years, leadingto encroachment of the forested areas over previously more open grasslands. During the three-year survey period, sampling intensity, measured as the number of days during which butter-flies were observed and/or photographed, increased from year to year. In 2012 and 2013,especially surveys began in February and continued into December. During the three years,a total of 79 species (Papilionidae, 3; Pieridae, 11; Lycaenidae, 17, Riodinidae, 1; Nymphal-idae, 37, including 15 Satyrinae; and Hesperiidae, 10), including seven listed as eitherendangered or near-threatened in Europe, were identified. Among the species of Europeanconservation value recorded were: Scolitantides orion, Melitaea aurelia, Melitaea trivia,Argynnis niobe, Hipparchia statilinus, Coenonympha oedippus and Carcharodus floccifera.Strong local populations of the following regionally threatened, declining and/or protectedspecies were also recorded: Euphydryas aurinia, Brintesia circe, Arethusana arethusa,Hipparchia fagi, Pyronia tithonus and Coenonympha arcania. Such intensive surveys cover-ing several months of each year provide in-depth knowledge of butterfly fauna in an area ofchanging land use, and can provide a benchmark for future surveys against a background ofcontinued land-use change, as well as other pressures such as climate change.

KEY WORDS Butterflies; Rhopalocera; Triestine karst; environmental change; biodiversity.

Received 31.01.2015; accepted 28.02.2015; printed 30.03.2015

INTRODUCTION

The character of the Triestine karst is determi-ned by its climate and geology. Climatically, itrepresents a transitional area between the Mediter-ranean and Continental/pre-alpine zones. Geologic-ally, the underlying limestone rocks contribute tofeatures such as exposed rocky outcrops, dolinas(depressions caused by the collapse of undergroundcaves), thin soils and little surface water (although

some artificial ponds have been created) (Poldini,1989).

These physical conditions have combined withhistoric land-use changes to create the patchwork ofhabitats for which the Triestine karst is known today.The original oak forest was felled in historic timesand for many years the area was heavily grazed.With a general cessation in grazing, regrowth hasoccurred and currently mixed woodlands dominatedby Ostrya carpinifolia Scop., while Carpinus

betulus L., Fraxinus ornus L., Quercus petraea(Matt.) Liebl. and Q. pubescens Willd. are also wi-despread. Many areas of open grassland exist, includ-ing some considered as Mediterranean maquis andsome cut for hay. Other areas are decreasing in size,however, as bushes and trees, including Cotinuscoggygria Scop. and Prunus mahaleb L., encroachon formerly grazed or cultivated areas. The grassyareas that remain contain a mixture of xerothermicherbaceous species with a peak flowering periodbetween mid May and mid June (Poldini, 1989). Nat-uralised areas of Pinus nigra J.F. Arnold, introducedfor timber in the 1850s, also survive in pockets.

In the dolinas, where temperature inversionsmean that a depth of 60 m is equivalent to anelevation of 1,500 to 1,600 m above sea level inwinter and 500 m in summer (Touring ClubItaliano, 1999), tree species other than O. carpini-folia dominate and the microclimate ensures thesurvival of glacial relict plant communities.

Meanwhile, close to the villages, small-scalevineyards and vegetable plots provide mainly forlocal consumption. The combination of these phys-ical and biological conditions has created a unique,biodiverse environment. Paolucci (2010), for ex-ample, includes 214 species in his guide to thebutterflies of northeast Italy, including the regions ofTrentino Alto Adige, Veneto and Friuli VeneziaGiulia (the Triveneto) - or some 44% of the 482European species, the karst playing host to well overa hundred species.

The encroachment of woodland into open grassyareas due to the abandonment of formerly grazedareas, however, continues to change the characterof the Triestine karst, impacting on the fauna andflora. Van Swaay & Warren (2001), for example,have noted that the abandonment of agriculturalland and/or changing habitat management affectssome 65% of threatened butterfly species in Europe,while widespread loss and reduction in size of breed-ing habitats resulting in habitat isolation andfragmentation affects 83% of Europe’s threatenedspecies. Many species listed by Paolucci (2010)thus exist in fragmented habitats or at the edge oftheir ranges.

Overlayed across such biological and anthropo-genic influences, climate change is also havingnoticeable effects on the distribution of manyEuropean butterfly species (Roy & Sparks, 2000;Roy et al., 2001; Warren et al., 2001; Stefanescu et

al., 2003), and will continue to do so for the fore-seeable future (Settele et al., 2008).

Given the importance of several Italian locationsfor butterfly diversity and conservation (van Swaay& Warren, 2006), alongside the lack of any sys-tematic recording scheme in the country (vanSwaay et al., 2012a), this study set out, throughsurveying the butterfly fauna of a restricted area ofthe Triestine karst, to establish a benchmark againstwhich future surveys to determine the ongoingimpacts of local land-use and/or climate-inducedchanges can be compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study area

A photographic survey of butterflies (LepidopteraRhopalocera) was carried out over a period of threeyears in an area around the villages of Malchina,Ceroglie and Slivia, the municipality of Duino-Aurisina near Trieste, in the Friuli Venezia-Giuliaregion, northeast Italy, close to the border withSlovenia (Fig. 1). The highest elevation in the regionis Monte Ermada (323 m) to the west of the surveyedzone, which is crossed by several rough tracks andpaths. The main paths included in the surveys de-scribed herein mostly either start from or passthrough Malchina, and include parts of the Geminapath, the Vertikala, CAI 31 and other marked paths(Fig. 1; Anonymous, 2005), and pass throughvarious habitats, including vegetable plots, vine-yards, woodlands, dolinas, and grassland that mayor may not be cut for hay. There are also severalponds in the study area, in particular one atMalchina and two close to Slivia.

In Malchina itself, many gardens have nectari-ferous plants such as Lavandula L., Mentha L. andOriganum L. that flower especially in July andattract butterflies from the surrounding areas. Theauthor’s south-facing garden is one such example.

Equipment

During sampling sessions, pictures were takenof as many butterflies encountered as possible - ifpossible including both upper- and under-wingviews to assist with accurate identification. For themost part, a Pentax K-k digital camera (typically set

PETER F. MCGRATH54

to 200 ASA) was used in tandem with a Sigma 105mm macro lens. On other occasions, other digitaldevices such as a compact camera or smartphonewere used to record specimens. In addition, espe-cially in 2013 and for those species that are easierto identify definitively (e.g. Iphiclides podalirius,male Anthocharis cardamines, male Colias croceusor Vanessa atalanta), butterflies identified withoutbeing photographed were recorded as ‘observed’.

Sampling technique/intensity

Surveys were undertaken over three consecutiveyears by following the rough tracks, footpaths andfield margins in the survey area. No attempt was madeto quantify the numbers of a given species observed.

Sampling intensity increased during the course ofthe three years, as outlined in Table 1. In most cases,surveys were carried out for at least 30 minutes andusually for between 60 to 120 minutes. Surveys werealso typically carried out on hot (for the time of year),sunny days with minimal cloud cover.

In 2011, photographs were taken ad hoc, withno attempt to systematically record all sightings,rather just a few notable occurrences. In addition,in most cases, the actual sampling actual dates were

55A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy

not precisely recorded, just the month. In ninesampling instances, the month is recorded only aseither June or July (Table 1).

In 2012, more intense efforts were made tophotograph or identify all butterflies observed.Survey dates (59 in total) were accurately recorded(Table 1).

In 2013, attempts were made to photograph oridentify all butterflies observed. As in 2012,sampling occasions noted in Table 1 as being under-taken in the author’s garden often lasted just a fewminutes and tended to be limited to the period of flo-wering of the Lavandula, Mentha and Origanumplants. In other cases, butterflies observed duringdays when no specific (photographic) survey wasundertaken were also recorded (12 such occasions).In 2013, including sampling occasions when eitheronly observations were recorded or when no butter-flies were seen (despite favourable conditions), atotal of 61 sampling sessions were undertaken(Table 1).

Identification and analysis

To identify the species recorded, various guidebooks were consulted, especially Paolucci (2010)

Figure 1. Study area. Left: location of the area surveyed in this study in relation to the rest of Italy, the Friuli Venezia Giuliaregion and the city of Trieste. The area highlighted in green is shown in more detail to the right. (Outline maps courtesy ofd-maps.com). Right: details of roads plus key tracks and paths and other features of the survey area between Ceroglie, Mal-china and Slivia north to the border between Italy and Slovenia.

and Tolman & Lewington (1997). In cases ofuncertainty, experts belonging to the ForumEntomologi Italiani (http://www.entomologiitaliani.net) were consulted by posting suitable photographsonline. The author also gratefully acknowledges theassistance of Lucio Morin, a local butterfly expert,for help with either the identification or confirm-ation of the identification of a number of specimens.

Among those species that can be difficult todistinguish from photographs, L. Morin (pers.comm.) also confirms that the species found in thesampling area are Leptidea sinapis, not L. reali,Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, not C. hyale(Linnaeus, 1758), and Plebejus argus, not Pl. idas(Linnaeus, 1761). In the case of white Pieridae,especially when no suitable photograph was ob-tained, individuals could often only be identified tothe genus level (Pieris). In 2011 or 2012, Pierisspp. were not regularly recorded, either as photo-graphs or as ‘observed’. Species names are valid asper the listing on Fauna Europea (www.faunaeur.org). It should be noted, however, that FaunaEuropea considers Hamearis lucina (Linnaeus,1758) as a member of the family Riodinidae,whereas it is now included among the Lycaenidaeby many authors. The conservation status of thespecies observed is based on the European Red Listof Butterflies (van Swaay et al., 2010), the listprovided by van Swaay et al. (2012b) for theEuropean Habitats Directive, and the list for theTriveneto region provided by Paolucci (2010).

RESULTS

Environmental variables

A total of 482, 1,208 and 1,657 photographswere retained from sampling surveys carried out in2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. These photo-graphs accounted for 156, 479 and 738 individualbutterflies in each of the three years, respectively.In addition, in 2013, some 128 individuals wererecorded as ‘observed’ but not photographed.

During these three years, 79 butterfly specieswere recorded. Of these, 45 were recorded in 2011when sampling was less intensive, 63 in 2012, and70 in 2013 (Tables 2, 3 and 4).

Of the 79 species recorded, 3 belonged to thefamily Papilionidae; 11 to the Pieridae; 17 to theLycaenidae; one to the Riodinidae; 37 to the

Nymphalidae, of which 15 were Satyrinae; and 10to the Hesperiidae.

In early 2012, no butterflies were observed orphotographed during the single sampling date inFebruary (12th), although they were on two of threedates in March (on 11th and 24th, but not on 26th).Likewise, in 2013, no butterflies were observed orphotographed on the February sampling date (16th),while they were recorded on one of the twosampling dates in March (on 3rd, but not on 22nd),and on nine of 10 dates in April (not on 15th).Among the early-season (up to mid April) speciesrecorded were Pieris rapae, P. napi, Gonepteryxrhamni, Libythea celtis, Nymphalis polychloros,Pararge aegeria and Erynnis tages.

In the second half of April, 15 species wererecorded in 2012 (including one specimen of Zeryn-thia polyxena on 30 April) and 16 in 2013 (Tables 3and 4). Among these in 2013 was V. atalanta, whichwas also regularly recorded in early March 2014.

With regard to late-season records, in 2012,butterflies were recorded on 2 and 3 November, butnot 22nd. No sampling was undertaken in Decem-ber 2012. In 2013, butterflies were recorded onthree of four dates in November (1, 10 and 17th, butnot on 24th), and on one of two dates in December(on 14th but not on 7th). These late-season species(observed in November and into early Decem-ber), included C. crocea, L. celtis, V. atalanta andCacyreus marshalli.

The highest number of species recorded in asingle day was 24 (on 24 August 2013), with morethan 20 species also being recorded on six otheroccasions in 2013 (22 June, 13 and 20 July, 16 and18 August and 9 September). In 2012, the max-imum number of species recorded in a single daywas 17 (on 17 July).

Comparing the number of species observedduring half-month periods (Tables 2, 3 and 4), 37species were recorded in the second half of July2013, with 50 species recorded for the month as awhole (Table 4). Similarly, in 2012, more specieswere recorded in July than any other month (37),although the diversity was greater in the first halfof the month (29 species compared to 19 in thesecond half of the month) (Table 3).

Among the species most commonly recorded(depending on their respective flight periods) wereI. podalirius, P. rapae and P. mannii, Pl. argus,Polyommatus icarus, Po. bellargus, V. atalanta,

56 PETER F. MCGRATH

57

Melanargia galathea f. procida, Maniola jurtinaand Coenonympha pamphilus. Among the mostcommonly recorded Hesperiidae were E. tages,Hesperia comma and Ochlodes sylvanus.

Other species were relatively common in someyears, but not recorded in other years. Aporiacrataegi, for example, was recorded in 2011 and2013 but not in 2012. Likewise, Hipparchia stat-ilinus and Coenonympha oedippus were recordedonly in 2012, and Aricia agestis and Pontia edusaonly in 2013 (Tables 2, 3 and 4).

Also of note were variant forms of some species.M. galathea was always present as M. galatheaf. procida, along with a small percentage of f.leucomelas. Likewise, a small percentage of Argyn-nis paphia, were f. valesina.

Species recorded rarely (i.e. no more than twoindividuals recorded in any one year) in the areasurveyed include Z. polyxena, Callophrys rubi,Leptotes pirithous, Cupido argiades, Cyanirissemiargus, Po. daphnis, Scolitantides orion,Nymphalis antiopa, Aglais io, Polygonia c-album,Melitaea aurelia, Brenthis hecate, Argynnis adippe,A. niobe, C. oedippus, Carcharodus alceae,Carcharodus floccifera and Spialia serorius.Among these, Z. polyxena, S.orion, N. antiopa, M.aurelia, B. hecate and C. oedippus are notableowing to their conservation status (see below).

Of particular interest are seven species recordedin the survey area that are included in the EuropeanRed List of Butterflies (van Swaay et al., 2010). Theconservation status of these species is outlined inTable 5. In addition, van Swaay et al. (2010) alsonote that Euphydryas aurinia, C. oedippus and Z.polyxena are listed in 16, 2 and 1 European LIFEprojects (see http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/life/),respectively, with special efforts being madetowards their conservation.

A number of other species recorded in the three-year survey are also of regional conservation in-terest (Table 6). Other than species such as Callophrysrubi, N. antiopa and Melitaea trivia that wererecorded infrequently, healthy populations ofvulnerable and locally protected species (includingL. celtis, E. aurinia, Brintesia circe, Arethusanaarethusa, Hipparchia fagi and Coenonymphaarcania) were recorded in the survey area.

The case of E. aurinia is interesting in that noindividuals were recorded south of the road thatbisects the village of Malchina (SS4); although

never abundant, it was observed in reasonablenumbers in localized areas north of SS4, but neverfar (no more than 500 m) from Malchina itself.Likewise, all individuals of C. oedippuswere recor-ded within an area of radius no more than 150 m,also to the north of Malchina.

In addition to those species highlighted in Table6, a further five species found in the survey area arerecorded by Paolucci (2010) as being lowerrisk/near threatened (LR/NT) in the Trivenetoregion: Cupido alcetas, S. orion, Hamearis lucina,Melitaea athalia and Minois dryas. Of these, H.lucina and M. dryas are also relatively common andwell distributed throughout most of the survey area(Tables 2, 3 and 4).

Likewise, Paolucci (2010) records the followingspecies as data deficient (DD) in the Trivenetoregion: P. mannii, Favonius quercus, C. argiades,N. polychloros, M. aurelia, A. niobe and C. flocci-fera. Of these, P. mannii and, early in the season,N. polychloros both maintain reasonable popula-tions in the survey area (Tables 3 and 4). Thus, thethree-year survey undertaken by the author helps tofill some of these data gaps.

DISCUSSION

The total of 79 species recorded during the three-year survey period compares favorably with otherareas of Europe. In the whole of the United King-dom, for example, there are just 57 resident plus tworegular migrant species (Asher et al., 2001). Wagneret al. (2013) recorded 49 butterfly species from 27sites along an altitude gradient in Bavaria, Germany;while Veronivnik et al. (2011a) recorded between 42and 61 species each year during a five-year survey(2007-2011) of a disused army base at Mlake in Slov-enia, recording a total of 95 species overall. In north-ern Italy, Marini et al. (2009) recorded 60 butterflyspecies through sampling 44 hay meadow parcelsduring a single year (2007) in the Trento region,while Boriani et al. (2005) sampled nine sites ofthree different rural habitat types in Emilia-Ro-magna in 2002 and 2003, identifying 39 species. Thetotal also compares well with the 91 butterflyspecies recorded by Carrara (1926) following manyyears of collection and study in the area aroundTrieste (immediately to the east of the area that isthe focus of this study and covering a much largerarea).

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy

TOTAL SPECIES 45 April (1)1 May (5) June (3) June-July (9) Aug (5) Sept (3) Oct (2)

PAPILIONIDAE

Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus, 1758) x X x x

Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 x x x

PIERIDAE

Anthocharis cardamines (Linnaeus,1758) o

Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus, 1758) X

Pieris mannii (Mayer, 1851) x

Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus, 1758) x x

Colias croceus (Fourcroy, 1785) x x x

Gonepteryx rhamni (Linnaeus, 1758) x

LYCAENIDAE

Favonius quercus (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Satyrium ilicis (Esper, 1779) x

Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus, 1761) x

Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898 x

Cupido argiades (Pallas, 1771) x

Table 2 (1/2). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in 2011. 1 Figures in brackets indicate no.of sampling sessions per month (or June/July period). 2 Actual sampling session not recorded. x = Either one or two individualsphotographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (butnot photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

Month-Dates/Year

Feb 16-28

Mar 1-15

Mar 16-31

Apr 1-15

Apr 16-30

May 1-15

May 16-31

Jun 1-15

Jun 16-30

Jul 1-15

Jul 16-31

2011 0 0 0 1 1 51 51 32 32 93 93

2012 14 1 2 1 65 4 3 1 71 91 86

2013 14 1 14 2 810 511 311 611 411 511 77, 11

Month-Dates/Year

Aug 1-15

Aug 16-31

Sept 1-15

Sept 16-30

Oct 1-15

Oct 16-31

Nov 1-15

Nov 16-30

Dec 1-15

Total

2011 5 5 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 28

2012 47 4 3 2 08 08 2 1 0 59

2013 17, 11 34 2 211 3 1 211 29 212 61

Table 1. Sampling intensity broken down into half-month intervals. Sampling occasions marked as ‘in author’s garden’ or‘observations only’ (see footnotes) were less intense than other occasions that involved excursions along the various pathshighlighted in Fig. 1. 1 Of which 3 occasions in author’s garden, Malchina. 2 Of which 2 occasions in author’s garden,Malchina. 3 Refers to June and July together, of which 7 occasions in author’s garden, Malchina. 4 No butterflies observed. 5One sampling date included two periods (30 April, a.m. and p.m.). 6 Of which 6 in author’s garden, Malchina. 7 Of which 1occasion in author’s garden, Malchina. 8 Owing to other commitments, no surveys were undertaken during October 2012. 9

No butterflies observed. Sampling carried out in evening (17:50-18:20) after warm sunny day. 10 Of which 2 occasions:‘observations’ only (no photographs) - within Malchina itself. 11 Of which 1 occasion: ‘observations’ only (no photographs)- within Malchina itself. 12 Of which 1 occasion: ‘observations’ only (no photographs) (14 December) within Malchina itself.No butterflies recorded on other sampling date (7 December).

PETER F. MCGRATH58

Species April (1)1 May (5) June (3) June-July (9) Aug (5) Sept (3) Oct (2)

Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758) x x X Xx x

Plebejus argyrognomon (Bergsträsser, 1779) x

Polyommatus bellargus (Rottemburg, 1775) X x xx Xxx

Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg, 1775) X xx x x

RIODINIDAE

Hamearis lucina (Linnaeus, 1758) x x x

NYMPHALIDAE

Vanessa atalanta (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 x x

Melitaea aurelia Nickerl, 1850 x

Melitaea didyma (Esper, 1778) xx

Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) X x

Issoria lathonia (Linnaeus, 1758) x x

Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus, 1758) x x Argynnis adippe (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775) x

Boloria dia (Linnaeus, 1767) x2

Brenthis hecate (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775) x

Melanargia galathea procida (Linnaeus, 1758) x

NYMPHALIDAE, Satyrinae

Minois dryas (Scopoli, 1763) xxx x x

Brintesia circe (Linnaeus, 1775) x Arethusana arethusa (Denis etSchiffermüller, 1775) xxx x x

Hipparchia fagi (Scopoli, 1763) xx xxx x x

Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758) X x

Lasiommata maera (Linnaeus, 1758) x x x

Pararge aegeria (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Pyronia tithonus (Linnaeus, 1767) x

Maniola jurtina (Linnaeus, 1758) x x x

Coenonympha arcania (Linnaeus, 1761) X

Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758) x xx xx xXx xx x

HESPERIIDAE

Erynnis tages (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Hesperia comma (Linnaeus, 1758) xx

Ochlodes sylvanus (Esper, 1777) x x x

No . of species/month 3 14 11 10 14 21 6

Table 2 (2/2). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in 2011. 1 Figures in brackets indicate no.of sampling sessions per month (or June/July period). 2 Actual sampling session not recorded. x = Either one or two individualsphotographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (butnot photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy 59

TOTAL SPECIES 63 Feb (1)1

March1-15(1)

March16-31(2)

April 1-15(1)

April16-30(6)

May 1-15(4)

May 16-31(3)

June 1-15(1)

June 16-30(6)

PAPILIONIDAE

Iphiclides podalirius x x xxZerynthia polyxena (Denis etSchiffermüller, 1775)2 x

PIERIDAE

Anthocharis cardamines x

Pieris mannii

Pieris napi Linnaeus, 1758 x x

Pieris rapae x x x x x xx

Pieris sp.

Leptidea sinapis xx

Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 xx

Colias croceus x

Colias sp.

Gonepteryx rhamni x

LYCAENIDAE

Favonius quercus x

Satyrium ilicis xx

Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Lycaena phlaeas

Leptotes pirithous (Linnaeus, 1767)

Cacyreus marshalli

Celastrina argiolus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Cupido alcetas (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) x x xx

Scolitantides orion (Pallas, 1771) x

Plebejus argus X X X xx

Plebejus argyrognomonPolyommatus bellargus x x xx

Polyommatus icarus Xx x x

Polyommatus sp.

RIODINIDAE

Hamearis lucina xx xxx

NYMPHALIDAE

Libythea celtis (Laicharting, 1782) x x x

Vanessa atalanta

Vanessa cardui

Nymphalis polychloros (Linnaeus, 1758) X x

Table 3 (1/4). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in II-VI.2012. Legend: 1 Figures inbrackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 (Table2). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographedduring a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photo-graphed nor observed during a sampling session.

PETER F. MCGRATH60

Species Feb (1)1

March1-15(1)

March16-31(2)

April 1-15(1)

April16-30(6)

May 1-15(4)

May 16-31(3)

June 1-15(1)

June 16-30(6)

Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus, 1758) xLimenitis reducta x Melitaea athalia (Rottemburg, 1775) x x Melitaea aurelia xMelitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758) x x x Melitaea didyma X x Melitaea trivia(Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775) x x x Euphydryas aurinia xxx xx Issoria lathonia x Argynnis paphia x x Boloria dia xxxx Brenthis daphne (Bergsträsser, 1780) xBrenthis hecate x Melanargia galathea procida x xx xx Minois dryasBrintesia circe x Arethusana arethusaHipparchia fagiHipparchia statilinus (Hufnagel, 1766)Hipparchia semeleLasiommata maera x x x x Lasiommata megera (Linnaeus, 1767)Pararge aegeria x x xx Pyronia tithonusManiola jurtina X xx xx Coenonympha arcania X x x Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius 1787)Coenonympha pamphilus xxx x xx x xX x HESPERIIDAECarcharodus alceae (Esper, 1780) x Erynnis tages x xx x Hesperia commaOchlodes sylvanus x Spialia sertorius (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) x Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer, 1808) x x Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda, 1761) x Total spp. for period 0 2 1 5 18 11 7 13 25Total spp. for month 0 3 20 16 28

Table 3 (2/4). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in II-VI.2012. Legend: 1 Figures inbrackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 (Table2). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographedduring a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photo-graphed nor observed during a sampling session.

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy 61

Species July 1-15(9)1

July 16-31(8)

Aug 1-15(4)

Aug 16-31(4)

Sept 1-15(3)

Sept 16-30(2)

Oct (0)

Nov 1-15(2)

Nov 16-30(1)

PAPILIONIDAE

Iphiclides podalirius x x Zerynthia polyxena (Denis etSchiffermüller, 1775)2

PIERIDAE

Anthocharis cardamines

Pieris mannii x X x x

Pieris napi

Pieris rapae x xx x x

Pieris sp. x x

Leptidea sinapis x x

Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 x x

Colias croceus x x Xx

Colias sp. x

Gonepteryx rhamniLYCAENIDAE

Favonius quercus x x x

Satyrium ilicis x

Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus, 1758)

Lycaena phlaeas xx

Leptotes pirithous (Linnaeus, 1767) x

Cacyreus marshalli x x x

Celastrina argiolus (Linnaeus, 1758) x xxxx x x

Cupido alcetas (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) x x x

Scolitantides orion (Pallas, 1771)

Plebejus argus X Xx Xx xXxx X X

Plebejus argyrognomon __x___

Polyommatus bellargus x xx xXx X

Polyommatus icarus x x x x Xx xx x x X X

Polyommatus sp. x

RIODINIDAE

Hamearis lucina x x x

NYMPHALIDAE

Libythea celtis (Laicharting, 1782) x

Vanessa atalanta x x x

Vanessa cardui x Nymphalis polychloros (Linnaeus, 1758)

Table 3 (3/4). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in VII-XI.2012. Legend: 1 Figures inbrackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 (Table2). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographedduring a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photo-graphed nor observed during a sampling session.

62 PETER F. MCGRATH

Species July 1-15(9)1

July 16-31(8)

Aug 1-15(4)

Aug 16-31(4)

Sept 1-15(3)

Sept 16-30(2)

Oct (0)

Nov 1-15(2)

Nov 16-30(1)

Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus, 1758)Limenitis reducta x x x x xMelitaea athalia (Rottemburg, 1775) x Melitaea aurelia xMelitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758)Melitaea didyma x x Melitaea trivia (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775)Euphydryas auriniaIssoria lathonia x Argynnis paphia xx x xBoloria dia x x Brenthis daphne (Bergsträsser, 1780)Brenthis hecate x Melanargia galathea procida xxXX xxMinois dryas x xxx x x Brintesia circe x x x x x xArethusana arethusa Xxx xx

Hipparchia fagi x X xx Hipparchia statilinus (Hufnagel, 1766) x x x Hipparchia semele XLasiommata maera x x xx X Lasiommata megera (Linnaeus, 1767) x Pararge aegeria x x Pyronia tithonus x xxxx xxx Maniola jurtina x xxx x xx xx XXx x x XCoenonympha arcania x x Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius 1787) xx Coenonympha pamphilus x x xx x X x xxHESPERIIDAECarcharodus alceae (Esper, 1780)Erynnis tages x Hesperia comma Xx X Ochlodes sylvanus xx xx x x Spialia sertorius (Hoffmannsegg, 1804)Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer, 1808)Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda, 1761) x Total spp. for period 29 19 19 14 16 11 _ 3 0Total spp. for month 37 23 21 _ 3

Table 3 (4/4). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in VII-XI.2012. Legend: 1 Figures inbrackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 (Table2). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individuals photographedduring a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) = Neither photo-graphed nor observed during a sampling session.

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy 63

TOTAL SPECIES 70 Feb16-28(1)1

March1-15(1)

March16-31(1)

April 1-15(2)

April16-30(8)

May 1-15(5)

May 16-31(3)

June 1-15(6)

June 16-30(4)

July 1-15(5)

PAPILIONIDAE

Iphiclides podalirius x oo xO xo o x o oXxXx

Papilio machaon o

PIERIDAE

Anthocharis cardamines xx x

Aporia crataegi x xoxxoo x

Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758) o

Pieris mannii x x XXo

Pieris napi x x

Pieris rapae x xxo xo o X

Pieris sp. o ox o

Pontia edusa (Fabricius, 1777)

Leptidea sinapis oo ox x xox xx xx x x

Colias alfacariensis o x

Colias croceus o x ooo oxx o

Colias sp.

Gonepteryx rhamni o x oo___ o

LYCAENIDAE

Favonius quercus

Satyrium ilicis xxXx o xx x

Callophrys rubi x

Lycaena phlaeas x o

Cacyreus marshalli __o__

Celastrina argiolus x xx xxxx

Cupido alcetas x

Scolitantides orion x x Aricia agestis (Denis etSchiffermüller, 1775) xx

Plebejus argus ox oXx X XxX xX

Plebejus argyronomon X

Plebejus sp.Cyaniris semiargus(Rottemburg, 1775) x

Polyommatus bellargus Xx oxxx o xxPolyommatus daphnis (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775)Polyommatus icarus xx x xX x xxx

Polyommatus sp. x x x

Table 4 (1/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in II-15.VII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 or2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individualsphotographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) =Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

64 PETER F. MCGRATH

Species Feb16-28(1)1

March1-15(1)

March16-31(1)

April 1-15(2)

April16-30(8)

May 1-15(5)

May 16-31(3)

June 1-15(6)

June 16-30(4)

July 1-15(5)

RIODINIDAE

Hamearis lucina X oo X

NYMPHALIDAE

Libythea celtis x o x o

Vanessa atalanta o o o x oo

Vanessa cardui x xx

Agalais io (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Aglais urticae (Linnaeus, 1758) o x x

Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus, 1758)

Nymphalis polychloros X x x

Polygonia c-album o x

Limenitis reducta x x xxx o o

Melitaea athalia xx x

Melitaea cinxia xX

Melitaea didyma x x xx x x

Melitaea trivia x

Euphydryas aurinia x x xx

Issoria lathonia x

Argynnis paphia x

Argynnis niobe (Linnaeus, 1758) x

Argynnis sp.

Boloria dia x

Brenthis daphne x xx x

Melanarga galathea procida Xxx XX oxXxX

Minois dryas

Brintesia circe oX xxxX

Arethusana arethusa

Hipparchia fagi x

Hipparchia semele x

Lasiommata maera xx xoXXxx xx

Lasiommata megera x x x o xxX

Pararge aegeria x xx oo x o xx x x

Pyronia tithonus

Maniola jurtina xX x Xxxx XX xXxo

Coenonympha arcania xx x XxXx o xx o xo

Coenonympha pamphilus x X Xx x xxxx xx xx x

Table 4 (2/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in II-15.VII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month (or June/July period). 2 Author provided only for those species notrecorded in 2011 or 2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X =3 or more individuals photographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a samplingsession; (or blank) = Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy 65

Species Feb16-28(1)1

March1-15(1)

March16-31(1)

April 1-15(2)

April16-30(8)

May 1-15(5)

May 16-31(3)

June 1-15(6)

June 16-30(4)

July 1-15(5)

HESPERIIDAECarcharodus floccifera (Zeller, 1847)Erynnis tages xox x o o

Hesperia comma

Ochlodes sylvanus xx xX oXxxxPyrgus amoricanus (Oberthür, 1910)Pyrgus malvoides (Elwes et Edwards, 1897)

Spialia sertorius x

Thymelicus lineola Xxx x

Thymelicus sylvestris xx

Total spp. for period 0 2 0 1 16 22 18 30 26 33Total spp. for month 0 2 16 30 37

Table 4 (3/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in II-15.VII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 or2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individualsphotographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) =Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

Table 4 (4/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in 16.VII-XII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month (or June/July period). 2 Author provided only for those species notrecorded in 2011 or 2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X =3 or more individuals photographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a samplingsession; (or blank) = Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

Species July 16-31(7)1

Aug 1-15(1)

Aug 16-31(3)

Sept 1-15(2)

Sept 16-30(2)

Oct 1-15(3)

Oct 16-31(1)

Nov 1-15(2)

Nov 16-30(2)

Dec 1-15(2)

PAPILIONIDAE

Iphiclides podalirius oX Xx x

Papilio machaon X x o

PIERIDAE

Anthocharis cardamines

Aporia crataegi

Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758)

Pieris mannii xxxx x o x

Pieris napi x x

Pieris rapae o x

Pieris sp. o oox o o o o

Pontia edusa (Fabricius, 1777) x o o

Leptidea sinapis xx x x x o

Colias alfacariensis x x

66 PETER F. MCGRATH

Species July 16-31(7)1

Aug 1-15(1)

Aug 16-31(3)

Sept 1-15(2)

Sept 16-30(2)

Oct 1-15(3)

Oct 16-31(1)

Nov 1-15(2)

Nov 16-30(2)

Dec 1-15(2)

PIERIDAE

Colias croceus xx x xo x o

Colias sp. x

Gonepteryx rhamni x

LYCAENIDAE

Favonius quercus o

Satyrium ilicis

Callophrys rubi

Lycaena phlaeas x x o x

Cacyreus marshalli x x

Celastrina argiolus o xx x

Cupido alcetas

Scolitantides orionAricia agestis (Denis etSchiffermüller, 1775)

X o x x x

Plebejus argus x XxXx o xxX o

Plebejus argyronomon X x

Plebejus sp. xCyaniris semiargus(Rottemburg, 1775)Polyommatus bellargus o XXX Xx xPolyommatus daphnis (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775)

x

Polyommatus icarus XXx XXX Xx x x x

Polyommatus sp.

RIODINIDAE

Hamearis lucina o x

NYMPHALIDAE

Libythea celtis x

Vanessa atalanta x x o o oxx x xo X o

Vanessa cardui

Agalais io (Linnaeus, 1758)

Aglais urticae (Linnaeus, 1758) xx

Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus, 1758) o

Nymphalis polychloros

Polygonia c-album

Limenitis reducta oo xx x o xxx x ox x

Melitaea athalia

Table 4 (5/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in 16.VII-XII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 or2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individualsphotographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; (or blank) =Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy 67

Species July 16-31(7)1

Aug 1-15(1)

Aug 16-31(3)

Sept 1-15(2)

Sept 16-30(2)

Oct 1-15(3)

Oct 16-31(1)

Nov 1-15(2)

Nov 16-30(2)

Dec 1-15(2)

Melitaea cinxia

Melitaea didyma x x x

Melitaea trivia

Euphydryas aurinia

Issoria lathonia o x x

Argynnis paphia ox xo

Argynnis niobe (Linnaeus, 1758)

Argynnis sp. o

Boloria dia x

Brenthis daphne

Melanarga galathea procida ox xx

Minois dryas xxx x x

Brintesia circe ox_xx_x xx_ x x

Arethusana arethusa XxX

Hipparchia fagi x Xox Xx ox

Hipparchia semele xx X x x

Lasiommata maera x xX X

Lasiommata megera xx xxX x x

Pararge aegeria x xxx xx oX o o x

Pyronia tithonus Xx o x x x

Maniola jurtina o xxX xX

Coenonympha arcania o

Coenonympha pamphilus xx x XXX Xx x xx x

HESPERIIDAECarcharodus floccifera (Zeller, 1847)

x

Erynnis tages xXXx x

Hesperia comma XXX xX x

Ochlodes sylvanus ooxXx_Pyrgus amoricanus (Oberthür, 1910)

x x ox

Pyrgus malvoides (Elwes et Edwards, 1897)

o x x

Spialia sertorius

Thymelicus lineola

Thymelicus sylvestris x

Total spp. for period 37 9 31 27 18 8 7 4 4 2Total spp. for month 50 33 30 10 6 2

Table 4 (6/6). Summary of butterfly species recorded and observed in the study area in 16.VII-XII.2013. Legend: 1 Figuresin brackets indicate no. of sampling sessions per month. 2 Author provided only for those species not recorded in 2011 or2012 (Tables 2 and 3). x = Either one or two individuals photographed during a sampling session; X = 3 or more individualsphotographed during a sampling session; o = Observed (but not photographed) during a sampling session; _ (or blank) =Neither photographed nor observed during a sampling session.

68 PETER F. MCGRATH

Among the species not recorded by Carrara(1926) is C. marshalli, a South African speciesintroduced into Italy in 1997 via horticultural tradein its host plant, Pelargonium (Balletto et al., 2005).C. marshalli has been recorded from nearby Udineand Tarcento as well as Slovenia since 2008(Bernardinelli, 2008; Verovnik et al., 2011b) andthus is likely to have arrived in the province ofTrieste around the same time.

Some 13 European countries, including France,Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, areimplementing butterfly recording schemes in at-tempts to build long-term data sets on species abun-dance. To date, however, Italy is not among thesecountries (van Swaay et al., 2012a, Butterfly Con-servation Europe: http://www.bc-europe.eu/index.php?id=339, accessed 14 March 2014). Suchschemes, which also record abundance, are valuablefor detecting population changes over the long-term, including those influenced by climate change(Roy & Sparks, 2000; Roy et al., 2001; Warren etal., 2001; Stefanescu et al., 2003). However, a casehas also been made for recording schemes that meas-ure presence rather than abundance (Casner et al.,2014), as is the case in the current study (althoughsome inferences on abundance can perhaps be madebased on repeated sightings over a short timeperiod). This study has also identified several species-rich 1 km transects that could be used as standardtransects in a regular recording scheme for the areaas per current guidelines (van Swaay et al., 2012a).

Among the 79 species recorded in this survey,some 14 are of conservation concern either in theregion or more widely in Europe (Tables 5 and 6).Of particular note are E. aurinia and C. oedippus.In the case of E. aurinia, a number of individualswere recorded in each of the three years of the sur-vey, indicating a stable, healthy population, even ifit did not cover the whole of the survey area. WhileC. oedippus was recorded only in 2012, several in-dividuals were found, indicating a relatively smallbut potentially healthy population that appears,however, to be isolated from any other local popu-lations. Both species were found in patches of roughvegetation and field margins of the cultivated areaclose to Malchina. It can also be noted that neitherspecies was recorded from the Trieste area in theearly 20th century (Carrara, 1926). Targeted sur-veys timed to coincide with peak flight periods ofthese two species and across a wider area than theareas identified by the author in this survey would

provide useful additional information on the im-portance of the location for these two species.

These two species are also among the 34 speciesconsidered by van Swaay & Warren (2006) whendeveloping a list of Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs)for conservation priority in Europe. When selectingtheir 431 PBAs, van Swaay & Warren (2006) tookinto account two types of area: discrete sites thatsupport one or more target species; and wider areas(such as mountain ranges or valley systems) wherea target species occurs as scattered populations thatmay well be connected as a single metapopulation.Indeed, a possible C. oedippus metapopulation hasbeen recorded at sites around Komen, some 8 kmfrom Malchina across the border in Slovenia (Čelik& Verovnik, 2010). In Italy, C. oedippus is knownfrom around 100 sites, although many are con-sidered under threat, mostly by natural reforestation(Bonelli et al., 2010). Further studies in and aroundthe survey area would also help to confirm if otherspecies recorded only rarely in the area were partof other significant metapopulations.

Given the presence of both E. aurinia and C.oedippus in the survey area, the area of the Triestinekarst around Malchina could be considered for pos-sible inclusion as a PBA. This would add to thecluster of PBAs already identified in the FriuliVenezia Giulia/Slovenia/Istria region. The fact thatthe area also habours a number of other species atrisk regionally, including strong populations of L.celtis, B. circe, Ar. arethusa, H. fagi and C. arcania,as well as populations of other species such as H.statilinus and Pyronia tithonus (Tables 2, 3, 4, and6) adds to the value of the area.

69A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy

Species European(EU25) status EU27 status1

Scolitantides orion LC NT

Melitaea aurelia NT LC

Melitaea trivia LC NT

Argynnis niobe LC NT

Hipparchia statilinus NT NT

Coenonympha oedippus EN LC

Carcharodus floccifera NT LC

Table 5. European-level conservation status of endangeredand threatened butterfly species recorded in the survey area(from van Swaay et al., 2010 and 2012b). LC = Leastconcern; NT = Near threatened; EN = Endangered. 1 EU27includes also Bulgaria and Romania

As a designated Natura 2000 site (see Natura Net-work Viewer: http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#),much of the survey area is theoretically protectedfrom development. In practice, however, the on-going abandonment of agricultural fields and succes-sion to more overgrown/wooded areas (Poldini,1989) or other threats such as construction of newhousing continue to erode suitable butterfly habitats.As mentioned earlier, the abandonment of agricul-tural land and/or changing habitat managementaffects many of Europe’s threatened butterflyspecies, while other important threats include climatechange, increased frequency and intensity of firesand tourism development (van Swaay et al., 2010).Indeed, in 2012, several areas close to the survey areawere affected by fire (Tosques, 2012a; 2012b).

Habitat loss is, however, regarded as the greatestthreat to butterflies. Van Swaay & Warren (2006), forexample, highlight that even species targeted for con-servation are declining not only within PBAs, but alsowithin protected areas. Likewise, in the UK, Warrenet al. (2001) demonstrated that, despite the positive ef-fects of climate change on range expansion, for three-quarters of 46 species considered, these gains wereoutweighed by the negative effects of habitat loss.

Van Swaay & Warren (2006) conclude that le-gislation alone is not enough to maintain threatenedpopulations, but that practical conservation meas-ures are also urgently needed. Such measuresshould include sound habitat management of keysites allied with sympathetic management of sur-rounding areas, such as the continuation of tradi-tional agriculture and forestry practices. They alsorecommend that populations of target species aremonitored and that research is conducted to identifyappropriate habitat management techniques - withappropriate financial support. In contrast, Navarro& Pereira (2012) argue that ‘rewilding’ (defined as“the passive management of ecological successionwith the goal of restoring natural ecosystem pro-cesses and reducing human control of landscapes”)of abandoned farmland should be considered as apossible land management option in Europe, partic-ularly on marginal areas. However, they also recog-nize that such passive forest regeneration will causesome species to decline in abundance while otherswould increase, i.e. there would be both ‘winner’and ‘loser’ species.

In the survey area considered here, the greatest

70 PETER F. MCGRATH

Species Status in Triveneto region Comments re: area surveyed1

Zerynthia polyxena Very local, EN, protected at EU level One individual photographed in 2012

Callophrys rubi LR but in decline Rare. Recorded once in 2012 and once in 2013

Libythea celtis Scarce, VU Good local populations

Nymphalis antiopa DD/EN - population at lower altitudes EN One individual observed in 2013

Melitaea trivia VU, protected in FVG2 Never common. Recorded twice in 2012 and once in 2013

Euphydryas aurinia NT, protected in FVG at EU level Reasonable population localized to parts of survey area

Brenthis hecate VU Very rare. Recorded twice in 2012 only

Brintesia circe EN, threatened, very local Good local population

Arethusana arethusa NT, protected in FVG Good local population

Hipparchia fagi VU, locally common , EN in Alto Adige Good local population

Hipparchia statilinus DD/LR, can be locally common A few individuals recorded in 2012 only

Pyronia tithonus Very local distribution, VU/EN Found regularly, but never more than one or two individuals

Coenonympha arcania LR/NT, common - populations in hill/mountain areas of FVG less threatened Good local population

Coenonympha oedippus VU, protected at EU level A few individuals recorded in 2012 only

Pyrgus amoricanus NT, only local populations Recorded intermittently in 2013 only

Table 6. Triveneto-level conservation status of protected, endangered, threatened and vulnerable butterfly species recordedin the survey area (from Paolucci, 2010). LR = Lower risk; NT = Near threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered;DD = Data deficient. 1 For additional details, refer to Tables 2, 3 and 4. 2FVG = Friuli Venezia Giulia

threat to local butterfly populations and diversity ofspecies remains the natural reforestation that is on-going since the decline of grazing in the area. Similareffects are occurring to local bird communities, withspecialist grassland species such as the rock partridgeAlectoris graeca (Meisner, 1804), grey partridgePerdix perdix (Linnaeus, 1758) and ortolan bunting(Emberiza hortulana Linnaeus, 1758) having gonelocally extinct, populations of skylark (Alaudaarvensis Linnaeus, 1758) and tawny pipit Anthuscampestris (Linnaeus, 1758) under threat, and num-bers of corn bunting (Emberiza calandra Linnaeus,1758), red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio Linnaeus,1758) and nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus Lin-naeus, 1758) much reduced. Concomitantly therehave been increases in species frequenting scrub andwoodland, such as the nightingale, blackcap, black-bird, chaffinch and melodious warbler (Parodi,1999). However, exactly which type of managementpractices are most suited for maintaining both faunaland floral diversity in the area, is unknown.

Based on research in Germany on a comparablegrassland site with shallow soil in a warm, dry tem-perate climate, Romermann et al. (2009) concludedthat neither mowing nor various mulching regimesproperly conserved the structure of wildflower pop-ulations developed over many years of grazing inspecies-rich semi-natural grasslands. However, theydid recommend mulching twice per year, as this gen-erated the most similar floristic and functional plantcommunity compared to the original grazing regime.

In contrast, regarding the conservation of anotherendangered grassland-specialist insect species, Sagapedo (Pallas, 1771) (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) thatis also present in the survey area (Fontana &Cussigh, 1996; author’s observations), from their stu-dies in the Czech Republic, Holuša et al. (2013) re-commended either extensive rotational grazing orusing scythes to cut grass in a traditional way to main-tain open areas of natural grassland. Alternatively,partial machine mowing (one-third to one-half ofspecific areas) each September could be considered.

Unfortunately it is more than likely that the cur-rent situation of abandonment and neglect of oncegrazed and cultivated areas is likely to continue inthe survey area for the foreseeable future. Similarly,Bonelli et al. (2010), discussing the conservation ofC. oedippus populations across Italy, note that nat-ural reforestation is best prevented by developing suit-able, but costly, management plans, “which for themoment remain only on paper, in the best of cases.”

The same is likely true for large parts of theTriestine karst, despite the undoubted conservationvalue for butterfly species, as reported here.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the as-sistance of Lucio Morin, a local butterfly expert, forhelp with the identification of a number of speci-mens and for providing valuable comments on thetext. In addition, a number of other members of theForum Entomologi Italiani assisted with identifica-tion of various specimens via photographs postedto the online forum (www.entomologiitaliani.net).Paul Tout and Rudi Verovnik also provided valuablecomments on the text. The contents of this articlerepresent the views of the author and do not reflectthe official opinion of TWAS or IAP.

REFERENCES

Anonymous, 2005. Carta topographica per escursionistino. 47: Carso Triestino e Isontino. Tabacco, Udine.

Asher J., Warren M., Fox R. Harding P., Jeffcoate G. &Jeffcoate S. (Eds.), 2001. Millennium Atlas ofButterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, UK, 456 pp.

Balletto E., Bonelli S. & Cassulo L., 2005. Mapping theItalian butterfly diversity for conservation. In: KühnE., Feldmann R., Thomas J.A. & Settele J.(Eds.),December 2005. Vol. 1: General Concepts and CaseStudies on the Ecology and Conservation of Butter-flies in Europe - Conference Proceedings. UFZLeipzig-Halle, 71–76.

Bonelli S., Canterino S. & Balletto E., 2010. Ecology ofCoenonympha oedippus (Fabricius, 1787) (Lepidop-tera: Nymphalidae) in Italy. Oedippus, 26: 25-30.

Boriani L., Burgio G., Marini M. & Genghini M., 2005.Faunistic study on butterflies collected in Northern Italyrural landscape. Bulletin of Insectology, 58: 49–56.

Bernardinelli I., 2008. Prima segnalazione di Cacyreusmarshalli per il Friuli Venezia Giulia. NotiziarioERSA 3/2008: Available at: http://www.ersa.fvg.it/informativa/notiziario-ersa/anno/2008/numero-3/prima-segnalazione-di-cacyreus-marshalli-per-il-friuli-venezia-giulia/ (accessed 10 March 2014).

Carrara G., 1926. Macrolepidotteri del territorio diTrieste. Atti del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale -Trieste, 11: 63–116.

Casner K.L., Forister M.L., Ram K. & Shapiro A.M.,2014. The utility of repeated presence data as asurrogate for counts: a case study using butterflies.Journal of Insect Conservation, 18: 13–27.

71A multi-year survey of the butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of a defined area of the Triestine karst, Italy

Čelik T. & Verovnik R., 2010. Distribution, habitat pref-erences and population ecology of the False RingletCoenonympha oedippus (Fabricius, 1787) (Lepidop-tera: Nymphalidae) in Slovenia. Oedippus, 26: 7–15.

Fontana P. & Cussigh F., 1996. Saga pedo (Pallas) edEmpusa fasciata Brullé in Italia, specie rare da pro-teggere (Insecta Orthoptera e Mantodea). Atti dell’Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati, 246B: 47–64.

Holuša J., Kočárek P. & Vlk R., 2013. Monitoring andconservation of Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tetti-goniidae) in an isolated northwestern population.Journal of Insect Conservation, 17: 663–669.

Marini L., Fontana P., Battisti A. & Gaston K., 2009.Agricultural management, vegetation traits andlandscape drive orthopteran and butterfly diversity ina grassland–forest mosaic: a multi-scale approach.Insect Conservation and Diversity, 2: 213-220. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00053.x

Navarro L.M. & Periera, H.M., 2012. Rewilding aban-doned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15: 900-912. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7

Paolucci P., 2010. Le farfalle dell’Italia nordorientale.Museo di Storia Naturale e Archeologia di Montebel-luna, Treviso / Cierre Edizione, Verona, 240 pp.

Parodi R., 1999. Gli Uccelli della Provincia di Gorizia.Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine, 356 pp.

Poldini L., 1989. La vegetazione del carso Isontino eTriestino - Studio paessaggio vegetale fra Trieste,Gorizia e i territori adiacenti. Edizioni Lint, Trieste,313 pp.

Romermann C., Bernhardt-Romermann M., Kleyer M.& Poschlod P., 2009. Substitutes for grazing in semi-natural grasslands - do mowing or mulching representvaluable alternatives to maintain vegetation struc-ture? Journal of Vegetation Science, 20: 1086–1098.

Roy D.B. & Sparks T.H., 2000. Phenology of Britishbutterflies and climate change. Global ChangeBiology, 6: 407–416.

Roy D.B., Rothery P., Moss D., Pollard E. & ThomasJ.A., 2001. Butterfly numbers and weather: predictinghistorical trends in abundance and the future effectsof climate change. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70:201–217.

Settele J., Kudrna O., Harpke A., Kuehn I., van SwaayC., Verovnik R., Warren M., Wiemers M., HanspachJ., Hickler T., Kuehn E., van Halder I., Veling K.,Vliegenthart A., Wynhoff I. & Schweiger O., 2008.Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies. Biorisk1 (Special issue), 710 pp.

Stefanescu C., Peñuelas P. & Filella I., 2003. Effects ofclimatic change on the phenology of butterflies in thenorthwest Mediterranean Basin. Global ClimateBiology, 9: 1494–1506.

Tolman T. & Lewington R., 1997. Collins Field Guide -Butterflies of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins,

London, 320 pp. Tosques R., 2012a. Brucia il Carso sopra Sistiana. Il Pic-

colo, 22 August 2012. http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/08/22/news/brucia-il-carso-sopra-sistiana-1.5579458 (accessed 13 March 2014).

Tosques R., 2012b. Bruciati 10 ettari; Ieri altre fiamme.Il Piccolo, 22 August 2012. http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/08/23/news/bruciati-10-ettari-ieri-altre-fiamme-1.5583593 (accessed 13 March 2014).

van Swaay C. & Warren M., 2001. Implementing the RedData Book of European Butterflies: the identificationof Prime Butterfly Areas. Proceedings of the SectionExperimental and Applied Entomology of theNetherlands Entomological Society (NEV), Amster-dam, 12: 129–134.

van Swaay C. & Warren M.S., 2006. Prime ButterflyAreas of Europe: an initial selection of priority sitesfor conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation, 10:5-11. doi:10.1007/s10841-005-7548-1

van Swaay C., Cuttelod A., Collins S., Maes D., LópezMunguira M., Šašić M., Settele J., Verovnik R., Ver-strael T., Warren M., Wiemers M. & Wynhof I.,2010. European Red List of Butterflies. PublicationsOffice of the European Union, Luxembourg, 60 pp.

van Swaay C.A.M., Brereton T., Kirkland P. & WarrenM.S., 2012a. Manual for Butterfly Monitoring.Report VS2012.010, De Vlinderstichting/Dutch But-terfly Conservation, Butterfly Conservation UK &Butterfly Conservation Europe, Wageningen, 14pp. http://www.bc-europe.eu/upload/Manual_Butterfly_Monitoring.pdf (accessed 13 March 2014).

van Swaay C., Collins S., Dušej G., Maes D., LópezMunguira M., Rakosy L., Ryrholm N., Šašić M.,Settele J., Tomas J.A., Verovnik R., Verstrael T.,Warren M., Wiemers M. & Wynhoff I., 2012b. Dosand don'ts for butterflies of the Habitats Directive ofthe European Union. Nature Conservation 1: 73–153.doi:10:3897.natureconservation.1.2786

Verovnik R., Kosmač M. & Valič P., 2011a. Mlake - ahotspot of butterfly diversity in Slovenia. NaturaSloveniae, 13: 17-30.

Verovnik R., Polak S. & Seljak G., 2011b. On the pres-ence and expansion of an allochthonous butterflyspecies in Slovenia - the geranium bronze (Cacyreusmarshalli (Butler 1898)). Acta entomologica slov-enica, 19: 5–16.

Wagner K.D., Krauss J. & Steffan-Dewenter I., 2013.Butterfly diversity and historical land cover changealong an altitudinal gradient. Journal of InsectConservation, 17: 1039–1046.

Warren M.S., Hill J.K., Thomas J.A., Asher J., Fox R.,Huntley B., Roy D.B., Telfer M.G., Jeffcoate S.,Harding P., Jeffcoate G., Willis S.G., Greatorex-Davis J.N., Moss D. & Thomas C.D., 2001. Rapidresponse of British butterflies to opposing forces ofclimate and habitat change. Nature, 414: 65–69.

72 PETER F. MCGRATH